‘Suppressed’ EU report could have banned pesticides worth billions

As many as 31 pesticides with a value running into billions of pounds could have been banned because of potential health risks, if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been acted upon, the Guardian has learned.

The science paper, seen by the Guardian, recommends ways of identifying and categorising the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that scientists link to a rise in foetal abnormalities, genital mutations, infertility, and adverse health effects ranging from cancer to IQ loss.

Commission sources say that the paper was buried by top EU officials under pressure from big chemical firms which use EDCs in toiletries, plastics and cosmetics, despite an annual health cost that studies peg at hundreds of millions of euros.

The unpublished EU paper says that the risks associated with exposure to even low-potency EDCs is so great that potency alone should not serve as a basis for chemicals being approved for use. Its proposed criteria for categorisations of EDCs – along with a strategy for implementing them – was supposed to have enabled EU bans of hazardous substances to take place last year.

“We were ready to go with the criteria and a strategy proposal as well but we we were told to forget about it by the secretary general’s office,” a Commission source told the Guardian. “Effectively the criteria were suppressed. We allowed the biocides and pesticides legislation to roll over.”

Last month, 11 MEPs complained in a cross-party letter to the health and food safety Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, about the EU’s failure to honour its mandate and adopt the EDC criteria.

This was supposed to have happened by the end of 2013, and is now the subject of court proceedings brought by Sweden, the European parliament and council.

But Catherine Day, the EU’s powerful secretary general, laid the blame for the delay on poor communication between the Commission’s health (Sanco) and environment (Envi) departments, which shared responsibility for the file.

“They were working in different directions, which made no sense so the secretariat-general did intervene to force them to do a joint impact assessment with the aim of coming up with one analysis on which the Commission could base itself,” she told the Guardian.

“The Commission is under no obligation to publish internal working papers,” another Commission spokesperson said. “As you know, the European Commission acts in full independence and in the general European interest.”

A counter-narrative popularised in the film Endocrination holds that Sanco was brought into the policy process as a proxy for industry interests.

“We had a lot of arguments with Sanco,” a Commission source said. “At one point, the secretary general intervened to halt the process and then basically it was just stopped. We were told that we and Sanco had to bang our heads together. But when the two directorates eventually – and reluctantly – reached an agreement, even that was blocked by the secretary general.”

Angeliki Lyssimachou, an environmental toxicologist for Pesticides Action Network Europe (PAN), said: “If the draft ‘cut-off’ criteria proposed by the Commission had been applied correctly, 31 pesticides would have been banned by now, fulfilling the mandate of the pesticide regulation to protect humans and the environment from low-level chronic endocrine disrupting pesticide exposure.”

In place of the proposed identification of hormone-mimicking compounds, the EU’s current roadmap favours industry-supported options for potency-based measurements of EDCs. These would set thresholds, below which exposure to low-potency EDCs would be deemed safe, even if no comprehensive testing for longer-term effects on humans had been undertaken.

Industry and agricultural lobbies favour this approach, backed by the UK and some German ministries. They argue that the socio-economic effects of pesticide and biocide bans could be ruinous for farming communities.

One National Farmers’ Union study last year estimated that the withdrawal of crop protection products could cost the UK farming industry up to 40,000 jobs and a £1.73bn fall in profits, equal to 36% of current levels.

By comparison, a PAN study estimates that under the roadmap options currently being considered, no more than seven – and as few as zero – pesticides would ever be withdrawn.

Jean-Charles Bocquet, the director of the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) said that in a “worst-case scenario,” his pesticides trade group believes that up to 60 products on the market could still be threatened with an endocrine-disrupting label, which would trigger their market withdrawal.

These products, many from the triazole family, represent over 40% of the European market with a value of €8-9bn (£6-6.8bn), ECPA says.

“We have to consider endocrine disruptors with a small weight and low-potency effect in a way balanced between their risk and the potential benefit,” Bocquet told the Guardian. “It is like if you have a very powerful car but it is driven carefully and safely, then you will not hurt the population with it,” he added.

The Commission’s draft criteria, though, say that because it can take decades of inter-generational research to quantify the risks from EDCs, a more precautionary approach is wise.

Potency “is not relevant for the hazard identification,” the paper says. “Potency on its own does not inform for high/low concern. Potency makes sense only if combined with exposure information and information on uncertainties.”

Risks from high doses of low-potency chemicals can be greater than that from low doses of high-potency ones, it continues. “There is no scientific way to define the cut-off threshold. It is always a decision based on impacts,” the paper says.

The human endocrine system synthesises chemical messengers – hormones – in one tissue before they are transported to another by the circulatory system, but very little is known about the way the process works.

Lisette van Vliet, a senior policy adviser to the Health and Environment Alliance, blamed pressure from the UK and German ministries and industry for delaying public protection from chronic diseases and environmental damage.

“This is really about whether we in the EU honestly and openly use the best science for identifying EDCs, or whether the interests of certain industries and two ministries or agencies from two countries manage to sway the outcome to the detriment of protecting public health and the environment,” she said.

Catherine Day countered that endocrine science was a complex area that was not necessarily as clear as some NGOs claimed.

“Needless to say, there is absolutely no truth in the allegation that our position was influenced by industry or anyone else,” she said. “Our concern is only for the quality and coherence of the Commission’s work – but not everyone wants to wait for that.”

Advertisement

Comments

Day is telling lies. DG Sec defines agendas and has total control over info exchanges between DGs. The idea that somehow things got out of control between Envo & Sanco is, literally unbelievable.

You see Cathy (I can call you Cathy cann’t I?) the evidence, that you “fixed” things for your mates in BusinessUrope/the Bx Lobby is all out there. You acted dishonestly & I’d suggest corruptly (not in the brown envelope way but intellectually). The “excuses” that you come up with are transparent – oh sure – you know you can justify what you did (or did not do) to the other hypocrite and liar (Juncket) & perhaps you are deluded to think you have “done the right thing”. If it is the latter – then it really is time you were retired – asap.

In the past I have dismissed criticism that the EC is corrupt. It is not in the monetary sense. However, this episode (and ETS and discount rates, and , and ) suggests that from an administrative sense you (& indeed your staff) set a fine example of an official(s) that has already decided on agendas and follows them – regardless of the evidence (ETS, discount rates etc etc – the list is long). This makes you wholly and completely morally and intellectually corrupt. It won’t be the Kippers of this world that will wreck the EU – it will be the likes of you – and your staff – with a little help from big business – which is what it is, ultimately all about – helping big business & if citizens get shafted – well so what – you certainly ain’t there to represent their interests – are you. TTIP is another example – but this time it appears a member state – Greece – will stop bureaucratic ambitions – I do hope so.

About the paper you refer to by the Washington School of Medicine in the interview the following is stated: “This study doesn’t prove causation, but the associations raise a red flag and support the need for future research.”

If these informations are correct, they would justify an internal enquiry by the Commission. In any case, the Ombudsman will have to investigate the matter; if necessary, the EP could press the President of the Commission to take a formal stand on this grave issue. JGG

I am a little confused here – the article referenced in the Guardian is more than two months old and does not mention pesticides – it is more on cosmetics and soaps; the issue is not about neonicotinoids and still EURACTIV goes with a photo of a bee protest – how is that related to EDCs? Your only scientific link is on a study of EDCs in “plastics, personal care products and household items to the early onset of menopause” … in an article on pesticides. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot??? The rest of the article is based on information provided by PAN, Chemsec, The Greens and a strange conspiracy-link to a lobbumentary by Stephane Horel, a proxy and consultant for Corporate Europe Observatory (who seem to be the chief advisers to EURACTIV these days). Your two blanket industry references are dated and have nothing to do with a story that seems to be fabricated to create some fear of evil industry lobbying just in time for considerations of revisions of the neonicotinoid ban … a classic NGO campaign tactic. Sorry EURACTIV, this is not journalism, this is disgraceful and I am embarrassed to be associated with such nonsense.

The Guardian post is this one published Monday 2 February 2015 12.51 GMT called “‘Suppressed’ EU report could have banned pesticides worth billions” . I cannot add the link in here without being blocked by the spam detector… cheers

Thank you – but now I am more annoyed than confused. EURACTIV just copy-pasted the article without a modicum of fact-checking. This is how a lot of politics gets masqueraded as facts – the bigger the lie, the more repeated …

This article follows a script put forward by anti-pesticide lobbyists – one that sees a nefarious conspiracy in what actually is a democratic process. The pesticide industry has been openly calling for an impact assessment on criteria for endocrine disruptors for the last five years. Maybe this is what one or a few “Commission officials” call “pressure” from industry but I’m guessing they’re used to lobbying from all sides, including anti-pesticide lobbyists who are pretty good at applying “pressure” when it suits their aims.

The article alleges that a document from the European Commission’s DG Environment was “suppressed” when actually it was a proposal at the beginning of a regulatory process. It was not “suppressed” so much as it was “not agreed”. The assertion that 31 chemicals would have been banned “if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been acted upon” is a bit like saying “if my aunt had wheels she’d be a bicycle”.

Is anyone really suggesting that all such documents should be considered without question? This is a complicated issue that requires serious examination – as the Commission Secretary General Catherine Day is finally allowed to point out in the last paragraph of the article.

As we made clear several times to this reporter, our industry has no interest in delay. We have called for the process to be done quickly. In fact the interim criteria currently in place are to our disadvantage, so we want a resolution that gives us regulatory clarity and allows us to innovate. It’s too bad this point was ignored in the story.

Well said Craig and nice site.
A few corrections though – You mention anti-pesticide lobbyists – well, I have been told that industry lobbies while NGOs “advocate” – which means, I am told, representing the interests of the people. I suppose it is their way of convincing themselves that their shit doesn’t stink.
Also you are proposing to have a reasonable debate. For the anti-pesticide groups, it is not about being reasonable, it is about winning. They have been hammering at the endocrine drum for 20 years and are not going to let science, facts or reason get in their way.
Finally, give up on that “journalist” – looking at some of his other reports, it is clear he has an agenda.